DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH [Complaint Case No:212 of 2011] Date of Institution :18.05.2011 Date of Decision :27.12.2011 ------------------------------------------ Smt Paramjit Kaur wife of S. Harjit Singh resident of V.P.O. Pakki Rurki, Tehsil Kharar, District SAS Nagar (Mohali). ---Complainant. (VERSUS) 1. The Manager, Meridian Mobile Pvt. Ltd., A-24/5, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi – 110044. 2. G.S.M. Masters, Quiet Office No.4, Sector 35-A, Chandigarh. 3. Harbans Singh & Sons, S.C.O. No.1004, Basement, Sector 22B, Chandigarh – 160022. ---Opposite parties. BEFORE: SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT SH. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU MEMBER Argued By: Sh. Harjit Singh, Authorised Representative/Husband of the complainant. OPs exparte. PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT Smt. Paramjit Kaur has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OP be directed:- i) To pay Rs.14,000/- as compensation, which included the costs of the defective mobile phone. ii) Award any other relief, which this Forum deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that on 20.05.2010, she purchased a Dual Sim Mobile DS 180 of Fly Company from OP No.3 having warranty of one year. On 11.02.2011, the said mobile developed problem of screen display. So, on 12.02.2011, the complainant approached OP No.3, who advised the complainant to approach OP No.2, which is the authorised service centre. As such, on the same day i.e. 12.02.2011, the complainant approached OP No.2 and handed over the defective mobile for necessary repairs vide Job Sheet No.FIN 112 GMM 10694 dated 12.2.2011. The complainant was asked to collect the repaired mobile within two to three days. On repeated visits to OP No.2 particularly on 12.3.2011 and 4.4.2011 and telephonic calls made by the complainant, the repaired mobile set was not returned to her. She was told that the spare parts, which needed replacement, are not available. She also made telephonic complaints to the higher authorities i.e. OP No.1 but to no effect. As per the complainant, till date, the mobile set is lying with OP No.2 and has not been repaired. In these circumstances, the present complaint has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 3. Initially, Sh. Virender Mishrta, Agent had appeared on behalf of OP No.1 but subsequently, on 13.10.2011, none appeared on its behalf and hence, OP No.1 was ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 13.10.2011. OPs No.2 and 3 were duly served through Process Server but no body appeared on their behalf. Therefore, they were ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 19.07.2011. 4. We have heard the authorised agent/husband of the complainant and have perused the record. 5. The averments made in the complaint as reproduced above stands corroborated from the affidavit of the complainant as well as from documents annexed with the complaint. From the copy of Retail Invoice dated 20.05.2010 (Annexure I), it is proved that the complainant purchased the mobile set in question for Rs.3,500/- from OP No.3. Annexure II is the coy of Warranty Card, as per which, the said mobile was under warranty of one year from the date of its purchase. Annexure III is the copy of Job Sheet dated 12.02.2011 vide which the mobile set was taken to the authorised service centre i.e. M/s G.S.M. (Fly Service Point) for necessary repairs and the problem reported by the complainant was as regards the display. It is evident from this Job Card that the complainant approached OP No.2 on 12.03.2011 and subsequently on 04.04.2011, on which dates, he was returned saying “Set Pending for parts”. It is thus proved on record that the OP No.2 is keeping the mobile set for want of spare parts. 6. Clause 8 of Terms and Conditions of Warranty Repairs as contained in Job Sheet (Annexure III) reads as under: - “7. GSM MASTERS shall make all efforts to ensure that product is repaired within 7 (seven) days from the date of receipts of faulty product. However, due to non availability/shortage of critical spare parts or complicated fault, the repair turn around times may take longer than the indicated time for delivery in job sheet. GSM MASTERS will not be responsible for any loss whatever in the event of delay in repair for such aforementioned reasons.” 7. From the reading of the above clause, it is borne out that the delay in handing over the mobile set back to the complainant is only to be condoned in case there is any letter/report showing that the spare parts are not available or the mobile set has some complicated fault. 8. In the present case, also there is delay in repairing the mobile phone due to non availability of the parts. However, the delay is so huge, which cannot be condoned merely in view of Clause 8 of the terms and conditions. Already ten months have expired from 12.02.2011 and the mobile handset has not been repaired. The complainant cannot be made to wait for so long or for an indefinite period. Otherwise also, the averments made in the complaint have gone un-rebutted and un-controverted as nobody appeared on behalf of the OPs despite due service to deny the same. In our considered view, non-return of the repaired mobile set to the complainant by OP No.2 and its Head Office, after retaining it for such a long period, amounts to deficiency in service on their part. 9. In view of the above findings, this complaint is allowed and the OPs are directed as under: - (i) to refund Rs.3,500/- to the complainant being the cost of the mobile as per Retail Invoice (Annexure I); (ii) to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- as compensation to the complainant for suffering mental agony and harassment due to deficiency in service. (iii) to pay an amount of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation. 10. This order be complied with by the OPs, jointly and severally, within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which OPs shall be liable to pay Rs.5,500/- i.e. [Rs.3,500 + Rs.2,000] along with interest @18% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.18.05.2011 till actual payment besides payment of Rs.3,000/- as costs of litigation. 11. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced 27th December 2011. Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT Sd/- (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) MEMBER Ad/-
C.C.No.212 of 2011 Present: None. --- Arguments heard on 26.12.2011. The case was reserved for orders. As per separate detailed order of even date, this complaint has been allowed. After compliance file be consigned. Announced. 27.12.2011 [LAKSHMAN SHARMA] [JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU] President Member
| | MR. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | , | | 
